The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

[DrRansom]

Ah, I understand, sorry for dropping the dishonest hammer.

Here is my question point, as the JPO release was an attempt to reduce the impact of the report, they would look for anything which would explain the F-35's lower than expected performance. In that case, I think it highly logical that JPO would add a line: "The AF-2's performance was limited because of testing software, later versions will achieve up to 9 G's turning rate" would make perfect sense within that document.

 

[sferrin]

Ah, I understand, sorry for dropping the dishonest hammer.

Here is my question point, as the JPO release was an attempt to reduce the impact of the report, they would look for anything which would explain the F-35's lower than expected performance. In that case, I think it highly logical that JPO would add a line: "The AF-2's performance was limited because of testing software, later versions will achieve up to 9 G's turning rate" would make perfect sense within that document.

Maybe, maybe not. As their customers are happy with the aircraft, I doubt they could care less what a bunch of fanboys think. Some suit probably told a manager "release SOMETHING" so "something" is what we got. When the customers start saying "we need something else" THAT'S when we'll know there is a problem. I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

How would it be able to "shine" when software limited to 6.5 Gs against a 9G jet? Sounds more like what it was - a test flight.

As is readily apparent from the report, an F-35A configured with empty bays, and no compensating ballast, without 25 mm ammunition, and no compensating ballast, and with just enough fuel to get up, do the deal,

Where was this ever stated?

 

[bobbymike]

If I could cut through all the technical stuff as I am not an aero-engineer or physicist just a well read enthusiast, it seems to me this whole episode was to put a currently, not final, configured aircraft at the time and simply see what it can do period end of story.

The test pilot was right to accurately assess the plane AS CONFIGURED that it had shortcoming in this flight test air to air regime and the program office was right to fire back and say "wait this isn't the full story"

Now everyone involved can go back and understand how new software and increasing the flight envelope will positively impact the aircraft and I am sure it will go back up against F-16/15/18s probably and win some and lose some.

Let's not forget this whole new aircraft will fight with all new tactics. In another more recent exercise where it was assisting other aircraft in CAS missions; the 4th Gen aircraft were consistently shot down in A2AD environment while the F-35 was never even detected.

 

[sferrin]

In another more recent exercise where it was assisting other aircraft in CAS missions; the 4th Gen aircraft were consistently shot down in A2AD environment while the F-35 was never even detected.

Yeah, it is somewhat amusing the way people like to just hand wave that stealth thing away.

 

[CxxTxx]

An insightful, well reasoned, very well written summation of the day's events by Bill Sweetman.

Controversy Flares Over F-35 Air Combat Report http://aviationweek.com/defense/controversy-flares-over-f-35-air-combat-report-0

First comment: "EM issues cannot be mitigated with software. Should change that F to an A." (Exactly what was stated to me.)

 

[Colonial-Marine]

USAF has always used the F designator for fighter-bombers.

Shouldn't be too much of a surprise that flying a F-35 (without fully refined flight control software) like you would the F-16 results in the actual F-16 having the advantage in such a dogfight scenario.

Considering the F/A-18 (which also bleeds speed rapidly) the notion that energy management issues will prevent high AoA maneuvers seems false.

 

[seruriermarshal]

No, The F-35 Was Not Beaten by an F-16
U.K. Defence Journal // July 01, 2015

It has been widely reported in the media over the last week that an F-35 was outperformed by an F-16, the truth is seemingly a little different.

It should be noted that the specific F-35 involved was ‘AF-2′, this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft. The aircraft, due to it being a test aircraft, had also not had the software installed that is required to use the sensors and mission systems that would be used in combat. Additionally, ‘AF-2′ does not feature the radar-absorbent material coating that operational aircraft have.

According to a recent press release from Lockheed Martin

“It [the F-35 in question] is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”

Articles making the claim that the F-16 is superior cite tests performed earlier in the year to assess the flying qualities of the F-35 during within visual range combat and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. The aim of the test was to demonstrate the ability of the F-35 to fly to the edge of its restricted test limits without exceeding them. The test scenario was apparently successful as it allowed the aircraft be cleared for greater agility in future tests.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/no-the-f-35-was-not-beaten-by-an-f-16

 

[seruriermarshal]

Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog
July 01, 2015




The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.
Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.
The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.
The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.
The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.

 

[kcran567]

This test flight seems suspicious in that they used a completely stripped f-35 in scenarios against an f16 with drop tanks, yet still had disappointing performance. It convenient to blame software issues for all the f35s performance shortcomings. When the f-16 was in its flight test program it surely didn't have to rely on software excuses to hide its performance.

Stealth and sensor fusion for the f35, other than that a step back regarding A2A combat capability.

Couldn't resist

F-35 Thunderchief II
Thud II

 

[Dragon029]

Well, there is a difference between losing energy (which everybody does) and losing too much energy to make that flight regime nearly useless. That seems to be the distinction the test pilot made.

Energy loss is the product of the time spent at high alpha; as stated numerous times throughout the report, the energy loss is a result of an inadequate pitch-rate, which in turn is strongly inferred to be a software limitation - loosen the anti-spin and control logic to increase the pitch rate and you could get a decent circle cutter.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The problem with that is that the F-35 software itself is in a catastrophic mess.

 

[airman]

F-35 can't dogfight !!!

 

[JFC Fuller]

So to summarize: we have a document that says the F-35 is not very good at doing something it was not designed to do, but which also tells us nothing about whether it is good at doing things it was designed to do. And for some reason this is considered significant news?

 

[sferrin]

An insightful, well reasoned, very well written summation of the day's events by Bill Sweetman.

ROFL! I noticed you completely ignored the question about who you are and what your credentials are (if you have any).

 

[sferrin]

So to summarize: we have a document that says the F-35 is not very good at doing something it was not designed to do, but which also tells us nothing about whether it is good at doing things it was designed to do. And for some reason this is considered significant news?

Shhhhhh. Did you know the F-16 is a piece of crap because it can't out turn a P-51, AND it only has one gun vs the P-51s SIX? (That's about the level of intelligence we're seeing on display here. You can be sure they'll be hiding firmly under their rocks after we've seen the F-35 at a few Red Flags.)

From DOD Buzz:

"Of course the JPO even missed the most important aspect.

The F-35 was specifically testing high angle of attack according to the report. It was not dogfighting in the sense that the F-35 pilot could do anything he wanted, but testing potential dogfighting methods using high AoA and large control changes. Reading comprehension must be dead in the world today. Since the F-35 can fly to 50deg AoA while the F-16 is limited to between 15-25 depending on Gs being pulled, they were not even testing the full capability of the plane, just a part of the envelope. Because, you know, it was a test flight to see how the plane reacts to high AoA and large control surface deflection. Don't believe me, read the first paragraph of the report. To extrapolate that to saying the F-35 cannot dogfight a F-16 is like saying that because the Zero was a better dogfighter than any allied fighter in WWII at 180kts, it was better period. The allies quickly learned to dogfight at 250kts where the Zero sucked and absolutely crushed them, even in F4Fs. Without knowing anything else about the maneuvering envelope, you don't know anywhere near enough to claim anything. And of course, it was a test flight. The test aircraft lacked much of the avionics suite of a production F-35.

"However, despite the F-35’s technologies and next-generation sensors – the JPO statements did not seem to necessarily contradict the central finding of the test-pilot’s assessment that, in terms of pure dogfighting maneuverability as its own variable, the F-35 did not perform as well as an F-16"

Maybe because that is not what the Test Pilot actually said. That is what David Axe said, taking the test pilots remarks out of context. What the test pilot said, was at high AoA, you know, what they were actually testing in this exercise, the fighter needed more pitch control and also recommended the changing the blended regime for high AoA to more than 30 degrees. He also recommended a bunch of changes to the control laws to make the aircraft more responsive, since you know that was the purpose of the test. Finally, he said there was no benefit to utilizing that flight regime. This is kind of like saying there is no benefit to dogfighting a Zero at 180kts. He did note that there was plenty of stability and maneuverability, but the control laws delayed the required response. Of course, the obvious answer is to change the control laws but that is just too much to process for most people I guess.

David Axe was kind enough to post the entire report, it's worth reading. Just for laughs, try reading it first and then read what David Axe wrote. As expected, it really doesn't say what he wants it to say."

 

[sferrin]

Remember "the gun won't fire until 2019" nonsense?

https://www.facebook.com/bryan.thompson.7505/videos/vb.542946196/10153428199151197/?type=2&theater

I wonder if any of the naysayers will show up to say they were wrong. I'm thinking they'll try to pretend just as hard as they can that the gun didn't fire.

 

[LowObservable]

Without actually looking, was that Sarge Mac-and-Cheese over at DoDBuzz? (Edit: I guessed wrong.)


The point about high alpha is addressed in the report: it was there, but its utility is limited because of the EM. Takes too long to get there and too long to get out.


Serurier- UKDJ does not seem to have read the full report, just the official response. Mighty fine reporting work, Lou.


Glad to hear that a 10-round ground burst means it's combat-ready...

 

[Michel Van]

Shhhhhh. Did you know the F-16 is a piece of crap because it can't out turn a P-51, AND it only has one gun vs the P-51s SIX? (That's about the level of intelligence we're seeing on display here. You can be sure they'll be hiding firmly under their rocks after we've seen the F-35 at a few Red Flags.)

satire mode/ on
Oh my god
Do that means the Belgian have only to replace there F-16 fleet with P-51 ?!
a Fighter Aircraft that already proven it can shot down jet fighters !
With superiority in Firepower, in Dogfight and economic low fuel consumption thanks to it e supercharged V-12 piston engine.
in contrast of the hyper complex, ultra expensive and fuel devouring 5 Generation Fighters Jets...

The Belgium Air Force will rise again out it's Ashes
The long awaited reawakening of Belgian air supremacy.
Out of the ashes of defeat...a shining silver bird arising...we will sew up the skies with our gleaming needles...the world will be....
satire Mode/ off

 

[sferrin]

Without actually looking, was that Sarge Mac-and-Cheese over at DoDBuzz? (Edit: I guessed wrong.)


The point about high alpha is addressed in the report: it was there, but its utility is limited because of the EM. Takes too long to get there and too long to get out.


Serurier- UKDJ does not seem to have read the full report, just the official response. Mighty fine reporting work, Lou.


Glad to hear that a 10-round ground burst means it's combat-ready...

The Super Hornet wins if it forces the F-16 to fight at low speed. The F-16 wins if it forces the Super Hornet to fight at higher speed. Which one sucks?

 

[sferrin]

Shhhhhh. Did you know the F-16 is a piece of crap because it can't out turn a P-51, AND it only has one gun vs the P-51s SIX? (That's about the level of intelligence we're seeing on display here. You can be sure they'll be hiding firmly under their rocks after we've seen the F-35 at a few Red Flags.)

satire mode/ on
Oh my god
Do that means the Belgian have only to replace there F-16 fleet with P-51 ?!
a Fighter Aircraft that already proven it can shot down jet fighters !
With superiority in Firepower, in Dogfight and economic low fuel consumption thanks to it e supercharged V-12 piston engine.
in contrast of the hyper complex, ultra expensive and fuel devouring 5 Generation Fighters Jets...

The Belgium Air Force will rise again out it's Ashes
The long awaited reawakening of Belgian air supremacy.
Out of the ashes of defeat...a shining silver bird arising...we will sew up the skies with our gleaming needles...the world will be....
satire Mode/ off

And just think of how many 7th Gen P-51s you can buy for the price of one "6th Gen" Gripen. "Quantity is a quality of it's own" you know.

 

[bobbymike]

Without actually looking, was that Sarge Mac-and-Cheese over at DoDBuzz? (Edit: I guessed wrong.)


The point about high alpha is addressed in the report: it was there, but its utility is limited because of the EM. Takes too long to get there and too long to get out.


Serurier- UKDJ does not seem to have read the full report, just the official response. Mighty fine reporting work, Lou.


Glad to hear that a 10-round ground burst means it's combat-ready...

The Super Hornet wins if it forces the F-16 to fight at low speed. The F-16 wins if it forces the Super Hornet to fight at higher speed. Which one sucks?

If my memory serves watching documentaries about aerial combat from WWII to today isn't the history of dog fighting different aircraft having to use different or new techniques/tactics/best ways to fight, etc. to fight other aircraft?

So isn't this just the NORMAL progression of flight testing? Don't you fly the F-16 different from the F-22 or F-15 or F-18 each depending on the strengths of each aircraft?

 

[sferrin]

So isn't this just the NORMAL progression of flight testing? Don't you fly the F-16 different from the F-22 or F-15 or F-18 each depending on the strengths of each aircraft?

Yep. And let's not forget, F-5s have "shot down" F-22s so obviously the F-22 is an unmaneuverable brick-like turkey.

 

[DrRansom]

LowObservable - I have a couple of questions the story:

1. Do you have a theory why the F-16D with two tanks was used? Is it the standard chase plane that was pressed into service as a target or is there another reason.

2. What do you think about this quote in the JPO press release:

The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.

Sferrin - the test pilot has experience with F-18 at high AoA (perhaps pre-training to prepare for F-35 combat.) At no point in the report does the test pilot compare the F-35's flight performance to the F-18. On the contrary, the only evidence we have about high AoA maneuverability is that the pitch rate and aircraft energy was insufficient to use that flight regime. Based upon that, we have no evidence to say that the F-35 can perform as well as a F-18. It is meant to, but so far cannot.

 

[sferrin]

LowObservable - I have a couple of questions the story:

1. Do you have a theory why the F-16D with two tanks was used? Is it the standard chase plane that was pressed into service as a target or is there another reason.

It is the most common used. In almost every instance, where we see a chase aircraft, it's an F-16D with tanks. A 3 second Google search will show you that. Of course the tinfoil hatters will say the F-35 team tried to sandbag the test by having a "loaded" F-16 flying chase but what can ya do?

edit: Those at Edwards anyway, i.e. the majority. Pax River might use F/A-18s because that's what they have. (Same reason Edwards uses F-16s.)

Based upon that, we have no evidence to say that the F-35 can perform as well as a F-18. It is meant to, but so far cannot.

Actual F-35 pilots say differently. Sorry.

 

[mkellytx]

So to summarize: we have a document that says the F-35 is not very good at doing something it was not designed to do, but which also tells us nothing about whether it is good at doing things it was designed to do. And for some reason this is considered significant news?

Shhhhhh. Did you know the F-16 is a piece of crap because it can't out turn a P-51, AND it only has one gun vs the P-51s SIX? (That's about the level of intelligence we're seeing on display here. You can be sure they'll be hiding firmly under their rocks after we've seen the F-35 at a few Red Flags.)

From DOD Buzz:

"Of course the JPO even missed the most important aspect.

The F-35 was specifically testing high angle of attack according to the report. It was not dogfighting in the sense that the F-35 pilot could do anything he wanted, but testing potential dogfighting methods using high AoA and large control changes.

Thanks Scott for posting, I was too lazy last night to type up the Objective section and make comments. So having done DT flight test and having done some high AoA/departure resistance tests perhaps I can shed some light here.


First of all this was a DT test out of Edwards, not an OT, OPEVAL, etc. out of Eglin or Nellis or Yuma, etc. As such the focus was verification of the technical performance. This is pretty clear from the Objectives note, "The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive sick/pedal inputs." Also, later note, "various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment." So in plain English rather than running a tightly scripted test aimed at verifying a specific result, this was an unscripted attempt to see if they could break the control laws at high AoA. This was borne out by the criteria, "The Flying Qualities criteria were that the aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected or unpredictable aircraft responses." In other words will it depart, or is the anti spin logic too conservative.


No where in the objectives does it say dogfight/BFM an F-16 with the objective of winning said dogfight. So, the objective was to evaluate the control laws, hence the reason all of those recommendations were about the control laws. Now, a prerequisite of spins/departures typically are high AoAs, onset rates are a big part of departures so necessarily the anti-spin logic will damp them. Since, this flight regime is pretty non-linear it shouldn't be surprising that those laws require tweaking based off of actual up and away testing.


So, the Cassandra's can stop hyperventilating.

 

[mkellytx]

LowObservable - I have a couple of questions the story:

1. Do you have a theory why the F-16D with two tanks was used? Is it the standard chase plane that was pressed into service as a target or is there another reason.

Because that's the chase jet that was available, it was a D model b/c there was likely an FTE in the back running cards. Why 2 bags? Length of mission, distance to the Pacific range availability/lack of availability of tankers. The choice of chases at ED are T-38's, F-16's and C-12, in a pinch you can barrow NASA F-18's and their T-34.

Sferrin - the test pilot has experience with F-18 at high AoA (perhaps pre-training to prepare for F-35 combat.) At no point in the report does the test pilot compare the F-35's flight performance to the F-18. On the contrary, the only evidence we have about high AoA maneuverability is that the pitch rate and aircraft energy was insufficient to use that flight regime. Based upon that, we have no evidence to say that the F-35 can perform as well as a F-18. It is meant to, but so far cannot.

The pilot most likely is a patch wearer and as such part of the curriculum is to exchange with the other Test pilot schools and fly their A/C. High AoA evals on unfamiliar A/C is part of the curriculum.

 

[LowObservable]

I don't see any evidence of anything nefarious behind the choice of a two-seat Block 40.


As for the quote about not discouraging anyone from making honest assessments... That's a rather obvious political statement that can either mean what it says or mean the exact opposite, depending who's reading it. You might ask, "if that's true, why did it need to be said"?

 

[DrRansom]

Thanks all for the answers on the F-16D. Chase plane pressed into service? (If only there was some footage..)

LO - I caught that statement as being very odd in the report, one only says that if there's a problem. Also, I found it odd that they announced they were going after the leaker. I think the more usual response would be to say nothing about the leaker, then hunt him down in private. Putting that in public is interesting.

sferrin - we'll see how close the F-35 performed to the F-18. That'll have to wait until after the control laws are fixed.

 

[sferrin]

sferrin - we'll see how close the F-35 performed to the F-18. That'll have to wait until after the control laws are fixed.

Yep. Imagine if Social Media were around for the F-14's first crash with those underpowered "interim" engines, or scores of engineless F-15s sitting there "useless", F-16s that couldn't fight at night or engage BVR, "flawed" B-52s that have their tails fall off, etc. etc. etc. Because "if it bleeds it leads" we are constantly bombarded by negativity (not just the F-35 but in general). Some shrink PhD candidate has probably already written a thesis on the effect it is having on society. I can't imagine it would be positive.

 

[bobbymike]

sferrin - we'll see how close the F-35 performed to the F-18. That'll have to wait until after the control laws are fixed.

Yep. Imagine if Social Media were around for the F-14's first crash with those underpowered "interim" engines, or scores of engineless F-15s sitting there "useless, F-16s that couldn't fight at night or engage BVR, "flawed" B-52s that have their tails fall off, etc. etc. etc. Because "if it bleeds it leads" we are constantly bombarded by negativity (not just the F-35 but in general). Some shrink PhD candidate has probably already written a thesis on the effect it is having on society. I can't imagine it would be positive.

You got that right I've already read a couple of Tweets from reporters complaining about LM taking the time to RESPOND to the initial leak. Can you imagine what they would be saying if LM DIDN'T respond????

 

[mkellytx]

Thanks all for the answers on the F-16D. Chase plane pressed into service? (If only there was some footage..)

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The 445th FLTS is there to support the other squadrons execute their tests fights. The Vipers, T-38's, C-12's and Tankers are there for test and safety requirements. Some of those aircraft have special equipment to capture high quality data, ie high accuracy pitot static systems. I've scheduled those assets for example when my test required flying the aircraft outside of dash one limits when our pitot static system would be inaccurate. Other times I've schedule photogs when doing safe separation tests. Other times I've schedule safety chases to clear the airspace for a first flight. The technical/safety requirement drives the type of chase.
[/font]

LO - I caught that statement as being very odd in the report, one only says that if there's a problem. Also, I found it odd that they announced they were going after the leaker. I think the more usual response would be to say nothing about the leaker, then hunt him down in private. Putting that in public is interesting.

Because people leaking these documents violated their NDA's and as a warning to those enticing people to leak.

 

[bobbymike]

Another fighter pilot responds;

Now, before we get into the why, let me first preface all of this by saying I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t work for Lockheed-Martin. I have nothing to do with the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps acquisitions process. As I mentioned in my Hornet versus Viper comparison, the Viper is my first love–so naturally I smiled a little when I read the headline.

But at the end of the day, I–just like every other fighter pilot out there–have to be fair.

First, let’s talk about what really happened. According to the article, an F-35A and a two-bag Block 40 F-16D took off on Jan 14, 2015 to engage in Basic Fighter Maneuver setups to test “the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment…this consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet.”

English please?

Just like a normal 1v1 proficiency sortie, the two fighters did canned setups to practice basic dogfighting. In the offensive setups, the F-35 would start off behind the F-16. At the specified range, the F-35 pilot would call “Fight’s On” and maneuver to the F-16’s control zone to employ weapons. In the defensive setups, the F-35 would start off in front while the Viper maneuvered to the F-35’s control zone. And finally, in the neutral (high-aspect) setup, the two aircraft would start completely neutral and fight until whatever DLOs (Designated Learning Objectives) they had were met, be they valid gunshots, valid missile shots, or whatever.

So while this particular article may lead you to believe the two aircraft went out there mano y mano and duked it out, the reality is that we don’t know where each deficiency was found. My guess is the critiques on the pitch rates for gunning and abilities to jink happened in the canned offensive and defensive setups. But one has to remember this is a test platform and they were out to get test data, not find out who the king of the mountain is.

The article talks about energy bleed rates, high-Alpha maneuvering, and the F-35 pilot’s “only winning move” to threaten with the nose at high angle of attack. What does that sound like?

To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.

As for the helmet problem, I’m sure that’s an ergonomics issue that will be worked out in testing. It’s not “sneaking up” on anyone; the TTL driver likely went blind during the engagement. As they say, “Lose sight, lose the fight.”

This aircraft is still in its infancy. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. There are far too many other factors to look at.

For example, the test pilot was a former F-15E pilot. Two-bag Vipers do the same thing to Strike Eagles all day long. Maybe he was just used to it?1 I keed. I keed. But seriously, a guy with maybe 100 hours in the F-35 versus a guy with 1,500+ Viper hours? I’ve seen thousand-hour F-16 guys in two-bag D-models beat up on brand new wingmen in clean, single-seat jets. It happens. It’s the reality of the amount of experience in your given cockpit.

I’m sure internet debates will rage on. It’s fun to trash the new kid, especially the new kid that’s overweight, wears too much bling, and talks about how awesome it is all the time. It’s way too early to declare the F-35 the “worst fighter aircraft design ever imagined.” Please. Let’s see how it does when guys who are proficient in developed tactics do against guys with similar amounts experience–the realm of the bros in the operational test or Weapons School environment.

There’s plenty of room to criticize this program, but accuracy is important. The sky isn’t really falling, Chicken Little. And for the rest of you? Blow out your torches and hang up your pitchforks, for we have miles to go.

http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/?utm_source=sumome&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumome_share

 

[Dragon029]

The pilot most likely is a patch wearer and as such part of the curriculum is to exchange with the other Test pilot schools and fly their A/C. High AoA evals on unfamiliar A/C is part of the curriculum.

Just for the record, the F-35 pilot was Lockheed's David "Doc" Nelson (the AvWeek article specifically states his name as being the pilot of AF-2 during these BFMs).

 

[mkellytx]

Just for the record, the F-35 pilot was Lockheed's David "Doc" Nelson (the AvWeek article specifically states his name as being the pilot of AF-2 during these BFMs).

As a former member of that community I'm not going to name names on a public forum unless it's already there in the report.

 

[Dragon029]

Fair enough; Nelson is completely in the green mind you; there's a negligible chance that he was involved in the leaked of the excerpt, and the report (while not entirely ideal) is what Lockheed / the JPO wants to see (program-internal integrity).

 

[bring_it_on]

Fair enough; Nelson is completely in the green mind you; there's a negligible chance that he was involved in the leaked of the excerpt, and the report (while not entirely ideal) is what Lockheed / the JPO wants to see (program-internal integrity).

Werent there 2 test pilots here?

 

[LowObservable]

BobbyMike - For the record, the Fighter Sweep story appears to have been written without the full report. It's based on Axe's piece, although the link goes to Jalopnik.


Sferrin - You really think things have changed? You're the first to talk about GAO reports on the F-16, M-1 tank and the Minie ball, and those got plenty of negative press. I was just reading an account of the B-2 fight in 1988-93, if you want to talk negative.


And maybe the press should have been more aware (and more negative) on the F-14/TF30, because it might have pushed the Pentagon to fix that lethal problem faster instead of faff-a***ing around with the A-12. And to correct the history, the tail fell off the B-52 two years after the last delivery.

 

[sferrin]

Sferrin - You really think things have changed? You're the first to talk about GAO reports on the F-16, M-1 tank and the Minie ball, and those got plenty of negative press. I was just reading an account of the B-2 fight in 1988-93, if you want to talk negative.

I think it's gotten worse. Before one had to either write a book or be employed in the media. Now any Joe Blow with a keyboard can trot something out, it makes the rounds, and the MSM leaps on that low-hanging fruit, whether it's accurate or not. It can be good at times (see the Dan Rather scandal) or bad. And yeah, I know it's always been that way to a degree (the Bradley sporting armor made of "rocket propellant" that was "the cause of the Hindenberg disaster" for example).

And maybe the press should have been more aware (and more negative) on the F-14/TF30, because it might have pushed the Pentagon to fix that lethal problem faster instead of faff-a***ing around with the A-12.

The F-14 had been in service for years by the time the A-12 came around. What they should have done was just fix the F401 as part of fixing the F100 problems. The USN didn't have the money though, and it's their budget that gets hit so. . . In the end it wasn't valiant journalists that put the F110 in the F-14 (the USN had been looking at reengining the Tomcat since they flew one with the F101) it was having the money to do it. In fact the contract to add the F110 to the F-14 happened the same year the contract for the A-12 was awarded - 1984, so the existence of the A-12 really had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And to correct the history, the tail fell off the B-52 two years after the last delivery.

Not sure I'm seeing the relevance there. Does the fact that it was two years out of production warrant giving it a pass? If a vertical tail just fell off an F-22 I'm thinking the MSM wouldn't be so kind. [/quote][/quote]

 

[bobbymike]

The CAS article I referred to prior:

http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/

High AoA video just because I like it ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA